NAT showed no significant Time × Group interaction on working memory task performance; only the main effects of Time and Group were significant¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-26 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Working memory measures showed consistent significant main effects of Time and Group but non-significant interactions, so there was no evidence that the NAT group improved more over time than the control group. → Han Jiang 2026

Evidence¶

Han Jiang 2026¶

Han Jiang, Stuart J. Johnstone, Yingxin Li, Jinjin Lu & Bo-Bei Mao. (2026). Neurocognitive Academic Training to Improve Symptoms Executive Functions and Chinese Handwriting in Children with ADHD. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-026-00415-9

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Working memory task (hidden-figure search, distinct from training tasks) in the same RCT. For Task Difficulty: Time F(1,54) = 17.27, p < 0.001; Group F(1,54) = 10.32, p < 0.001; interaction F(1,54) = 1.03, p = 0.314, η²p = 0.02; similar patterns for Found RT (interaction η²p = 0.003) and Found Accuracy (interaction η²p = 0.02). The Time effect can reflect improvement in both groups and the Group effect an overall difference between groups, so the study does not show a training-specific working-memory gain. Impact left uncoded because the training effect itself (the interaction) was non-significant.

"For working memory measures, significant main effects of Time and Group emerged consistently, although the Time × Group interactions were non-significant."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Working Memory — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Working memory performance increases from baseline to the first post-induction trial across all age groups and conditions, consistent with practice effects — related